Posted on 10/07/2018 8:09:26 AM PDT by huldah1776
snip
Rosmann, an Iowa farmer, is a psychologist and one of the nation’s leading farmer behavioral health experts. He often answers phone calls from those in crisis. And for 40 years, he has worked to understand why farmers take their lives at such alarming rates – currently, higher rates than any other occupation in the United States.
snip
Last year, a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that people working in agriculture – including farmers, farm laborers, ranchers, fishers, and lumber harvesters – take their lives at a rate higher than any other occupation. The data suggested that the suicide rate for agricultural workers in 17 states was nearly five times higher compared with that in the general population.
After the study was released, Newsweek reported that the suicide death rate for farmers was more than double that of military veterans…. Rosmann and other experts add that the farmer suicide rate might be higher, because an unknown number of farmers disguise their suicides as farm accidents.
snip
In the 1980s, America’s continuing family farm crisis began. … Loans were called in. Interest rates doubled overnight. Farmers were forced to liquidate their operations and evicted from their land. There were fights at grain elevators, shootings in local banks. The suicide rate soared.
Snip
Rosmann’s program proved so successful that it became the model for a nationwide program called the Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network (FRSAN). Snip The program, which would have created regional and national helplines and provided counseling for farmers, was estimated to cost the government $18m annually. Rosmann argues that US farmers lost by suicide totals much more than this – in dollars, farmland, national security in the form of food, and the emotional and financial toll on families and entire communities.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
I actually really miss the isolation.
Of all issue my family had as a kid, the remotes never bothered Dad and I.
Mom was nuts, but that had a lot more to do with other things but being 30 minutes from town didn’t help
CDC’s data group is overly broad and captures too many non-farm operators to be of use.
Show me data drawn from farm owner-operator suicide investigations with autopsies not inconsistent death certificate reporting which varies at every level of transmission in 17 states.
Very good points. A lot of the uncertainty in the farming occupation is caused by natural factors, but a lot more is regulation.
Glad you were interested - here’s much of the legal history. For a proper understanding of the background not only must the Constitution be read, but the 1854 Treaty with the Nisqualli (Tribe) and the 1855 Treaty of Neah Bay (Makah Tribe)
1854 Treaty with the Nisqualli (Tribe): It is upon this treaty which the present-day Washington State Tribes make their claims to whaling and fishing rights. Article 4 gives them this “right” stating both to be “in common with all” citizens. While all citizens can fish for salmon, none are permitted to go whaling.
1) PUYALLUP TRIBE v. DEPT. OF GAME, 391 U.S. 392 (1968)
U.S. Supreme Court
PUYALLUP TRIBE v. DEPT. OF GAME, 391 U.S. 392 (1968) 391 U.S. 392
PUYALLUP TRIBE v. DEPARTMENT OF GAME OF WASHINGTON ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON.
No. 247.
Argued March 25-26, 1968.
Decided May 27, 1968.
This ruling gave the Tribes the right to fish with non-traditional gear like gill nets, set nets and purse seines off-reservation.
2) WASHINGTON GAME DEPT. v. PUYALLUP TRIBE, 414 U.S. 44 (1973)
U.S. Supreme Court
WASHINGTON GAME DEPT. v. PUYALLUP TRIBE, 414 U.S. 44 (1973)
414 U.S. 44
DEPARTMENT OF GAME OF WASHINGTON v. PUYALLUP TRIBE ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON
No. 72-481.
Argued October 10, 1973
Decided November 19, 1973*
This ruling gave the tribes access to in-river fisheries, but provided that the state was not obligated to subsidize them with planted fish.
3) United States v. State of Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974) - AKA the Boldt Decision
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington - 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974)
March 22, 1974
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
Quinault Tribe of Indians on its own behalf and on behalf of the Queets Band of Indians, et al., Intervenor-Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, Defendant,
Thor C. Tollefson, Director, Washington State Department of Fisheries, et al., Intervenor-Defendants.
Civ. No. 9213.
United States District Court, W. D. Washington at Tacoma.
February 12, 1974.
On Question Per Reconsideration Motion March 22, 1974.
Injunction March 22, 1974.
Gave the Tribes 80% of the salmon with the remaining 20% to be split 60-40 between escapement and non-Indians.
4) PUYALLUP TRIBE v. WASHINGTON GAME DEPT., 433 U.S. 165 (1977)
U.S. Supreme Court
PUYALLUP TRIBE v. WASHINGTON GAME DEPT., 433 U.S. 165 (1977)
433 U.S. 165
PUYALLUP TRIBE, INC., ET AL. v. DEPARTMENT OF GAME OF WASHINGTON ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON
No. 76-423.
Argued April 18, 1977
Decided June 23, 1977
This ruling rejected Tribal claims to exclusive fishing rights to salmon and maked catch accounting voluntary.
4) PURSE SEINE VESSEL OWNERS ASSOCIATION,
Puget Sound Gillnetters Association, Frank Marinkovich, Philip Sutherland, and Wallace K. Green,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the United States Coast Guard, the United States Department of the Interior, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 77-2968
United States Court Of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
584 F.2d 931, 1978 U.S. App. Decision
October 26, 1978
5) WASHINGTON v. FISHING VESSEL ASSN., 443 U.S. 658 (1979)
WASHINGTON ET AL. v. WASHINGTON STATE COMMERCIAL PASSENGER FISHING VESSEL
ASSOCIATION ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON
No. 77-983.
Argued February 28, 1979.
Decided July 2, 1979.
From this single, little-known Court decision flowed all the modern notions of ‘Tribal rights’, ‘Tribal Sovereignty’ as well as worldwide ‘native activism’. Had the PSGA lawyers been able to argue their case, instead of having to spend their 15 minutes rebutting the State of Washington, the outcome might have been entirely different. See the Dissenting Opinions of Justices Powell, Stewart and Rehnquist.
The Boldt Decision was VACATED, i.e. overturned. The court “determined” the phrase “in common with” to mean up to 50% of the harvest was due to the Tribes, with escapement still coming out of the Non-Indian share. In one decision, all Americans not belonging to a Treaty Tribe were declared second-class citizens ... This ruling still stands, only modified to give the Tribes still more access to salt-water shellfish
See:
1) U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. STATE OF WASHINGTON No. 95-35442 No. 95-35442 CV-89-00003-ER
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.; (various tribes)
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., Defendants, and WASHINGTON HARVEST DIVERS ASSOCIATION;
EDWARD KNUDSON; WASHINGTON DUNGENESS CRAB FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATION; ERNEST SUMMERS, Intervenors-Appellants.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Edward J. Rafeedie, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 14, 1995 - Seattle, Washington
Filed June 12, 1996
2) U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
USA v STATE OF WASHINGTON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, (various tribes) v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, (various tribes)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Barbara J. Rothstein, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 5, 1995—Seattle, Washington
Filed October 23, 1996
Basically abrogated the Treaty with the Nisqualli for Shellfish harvest rights.
The overall result has been an impoverishment throughout most of rural America.
I can tell you ... Hubs busted his hump for years working for the family ... it’s exhaustion, and an honor-shame culture. The elders might have bought the farm when crop prices calculated for inflation were 2x or 3x what they are now ... same for milk and livestock ... and the whole farm cost about as much as a McMansion now. We farmers got more and more efficient and farmers got lower and lower prices. Land prices went up to the point an ordinary family farm would cost literally millions of dollars to buy based on crop and livestock prices that have been flat to down for years, and inputs sky rocketed. So the elders gave us everything except a good economy ... you walk out and see empty barns, rusting machinery, weeds choking the barn yard ... the remainining elders give you hell about it and you remember the good old days and eyes fill wiht tears missing the elders who have gone on ... if we were not Christians, and were not blessed to live in an area with lots of jobs, that could have been us.
I can believe that since I just finished working on a new pork plant in Iowa. It’s a massive facility and they plan on harvesting a minimum of 50,000 head per day (single shift).
Dang, if it isn’t one way to destroy the American way it’s another. I’m shaking my head and doing a face palm at the same time. And now, the anger...grrrr.
Less farmers suicide than are murdered in Chicago
I was thinking at first it is a choice, but I really think it’s all international deep state initiated. Why didn’t zero + company EVER address it? What about Rahm?
You will not find heritage breeds being raised at the big hog farms but you do find a bunch of little guys with under ten sows raising them for the gourmet market and game ranches.
The guys who are just getting by and doing it for the love farming.
They also gutted the "right to farm" act so it does not apply to the little guys. Only the medium to large farms.
Not to toot our own horns but we are the ones keeping the rarer breeds of animals and plants alive. The Bradford Watermelon, the Ivan Tomato, The Kerry cow, American ginseng, American Guinea Hog, even the American Chestnut all us. The big guys may feed the world but we keep the gene pool alive and healthy so they have something to draw from.
It would be nice if they would leave us alone to do what we love.
“Those working in the Agriculture industry also have higher rates of cancer and diseases such as ALS (Lou Gherrig’s disease.”
Actually lower cancer rates. I’m part of a long term study that is looking at that exact issue for farmers and those in ag related industries. Lower overall cancer rates, but higher for a few kinds.
Look, the manufacturing industry down sized off shored radically. All those workers were thrown under the bus and were told to retrain to be doctors and software programmers. What makes farmers such snow flakes?
That isn’t even the biggest kill plant I have been in.
The change in swine genetics has been troubling.
My Dad had a good “Farmer’s Hybrid” line that he was selling to the big boys. They looked like good solid hogs.
The hogs today look short, over muscled, and way to lean. We let ours run outside 12 months a year (With shelters). The new lines would die of exposure. They yield great, but to be honest the taste is to bland for me.
The genetics are way to narrow, way to much in common. My late grandfather always warned us about getting the lines to close. Seems like the big boys have forgotten basic animal husbandry. And it will bite them.
Yes Sir you are correct.
Where I live, in SW Nebraska, the cancer rates are above average. I have lived in many areas of the lower 48, but I have never noted so many individuals in one geographic area having cancer of one form or another. The rate of occurrence is perhaps dependent upon individual levels of duration, exposure, and genetics, as well as variables in regional climate.
I have a friend here who has lost 3 of her brothers to ALS - which although the disease is typical to a genetic disorder, there may be environmental triggers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.